Opinion: Sustaining Momentum in Armenia-Türkiye Normalization After Armenia’s Parliamentary Elections

This is an article by Dr Benyamin Poghosyan, Senior Research Fellow at APRI Armenia and a member of the LINKS Europe Strategic Platform on Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. This article was first published in the Turkish publication "Global Panorama".

The signing of the framework agreement between Armenia and the United States on the Trump Route for Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) on June 4, 2026, and the ruling Civil Contract party’s victory in Armenia’s June 7 parliamentary elections have opened a window of opportunity to advance Armenia-Türkiye normalization. Türkiye, in coordination with the United States, is well positioned to seize this moment and help move the region from frozen conflict toward normalization.

TRIPP emerged from the August 2025 Washington meeting, where Armenia and Azerbaijan also initialed a peace agreement, giving fresh momentum to regional normalization. Since then, TRIPP has been moving toward implementation. The framework agreement signed on June 4 established the basis for developing and operating the route. This was followed in early July by a visit from engineers from the U.S. consulting firm AECOM, who surveyed the proposed site for rail and other infrastructure development. On July 16, the Armenian government approved a draft law to ratify the framework agreement and submitted it to the Constitutional Court. These steps were encouraging for both the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Türkiye normalization processes, as all sides view TRIPP as part of the region’s broader transition from conflict and isolation toward connectivity and cooperation.

Yet normalization has not proceeded as some may have expected, and the momentum generated in Washington is fading. The main hurdle to signing the peace agreement is Azerbaijan’s insistence that Armenia amend its constitution. The dispute centers on the preamble’s reference to Armenia’s 1990 Declaration of Independence, which cites a 1989 decision supporting the reunification of Soviet Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenia’s prime minister had stated that amending the constitution had been part of the ruling party’s election platform and promised to publish a draft of the new constitution by the end of 2026. But despite its victory, the Civil Contract party did not secure the two-thirds majority in parliament needed to approve a new constitution. Even if the ruling party can persuade some opposition MPs to support it, final approval would still require a nationwide referendum, whose outcome is far from guaranteed given significant public opposition.

That, in turn, has complicated Armenia-Türkiye normalization, as Ankara considers a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan a prerequisite for progress. Relations between Yerevan and Ankara have improved since 2022. In July 2022, the two sides agreed to open their border to third-country nationals and diplomatic passport holders as a first step toward full normalization. Since then, their special representatives have met several times, discussed rehabilitating the Gyumri-Kars railway, and agreed to permit direct trade. But the talks have produced no major breakthrough, and four years later, the border remains closed. This has created a vicious circle: without constitutional change, there is no Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement; without that agreement, Armenia-Türkiye normalization cannot advance; and without progress on either track, the momentum generated by the August 2025 Washington summit risks being lost. Meanwhile, the U.S. midterm elections in November may shift the Trump administration’s attention toward domestic politics, leaving roughly four months to break the deadlock and restore momentum.

Breaking this vicious circle will require sustained diplomatic engagement. Given the domestic political constraints in Armenia, there are only two realistic paths forward. Either Azerbaijan drops its demand that Armenia amend its constitution, sign and ratify the peace agreement, and stop blocking Armenia-Türkiye normalization, or Türkiye implements the July 2022 agreement and then proceeds toward full normalization without waiting for the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement to be signed.

As Azerbaijan continues to insist on constitutional changes despite Armenia’s domestic political constraints, the fate of the momentum generated in Washington now depends largely on proactive U.S. engagement and Türkiye’s next steps in advancing the normalization process.

By opting for the second pathway, namely, opening its border with Armenia and normalizing relations, Türkiye stands to gain in a number of ways. It would strengthen its position as a regional energy and transport hub, a role Ankara considers strategically important. It is hardly tenable to claim to be a fully functioning hub while maintaining a closed border with one direct neighbor.

Additionally, normalization would also expand Türkiye’s overall presence in the South Caucasus. Ankara has an alliance with Azerbaijan and a strategic partnership with Georgia. Relations with Armenia remain the missing link in Türkiye’s regional policy. Such steps by Türkiye would also give Armenia greater maneuvering space in its relations with Russia, an outcome that aligns with Türkiye’s regional goals.

Normalization with Yerevan could also strengthen Türkiye’s relations with the United States and the EU, both of which would likely view such a step favorably at a time when Ankara seeks to improve ties with them.

Washington has long supported Armenia-Türkiye normalization and recently elevated its relations with Yerevan to a comprehensive strategic partnership. The last charter identifies the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Gyumri-Kars railway as a catalytic step toward unlocking the region’s full economic potential. Normalization with Armenia may help Türkiye as Ankara seeks to improve relations with the US, including in defense cooperation.

The EU, meanwhile, has signed a Strategic Agenda for the EU-Armenia Partnership with Yerevan and established a connectivity agenda platform to mobilize up to €2 billion for strategic connectivity investments in the Black Sea region and the South Caucasus. This underscores the EU’s interest in opening up regional connectivity, including the Armenia-Türkiye border. Normalization with Armenia could reflect positively on EU-Türkiye relations, as both sides are in active discussions about the future trajectory of bilateral ties. Türkiye would also improve its prospects of benefiting from the fund.

The next three months will be crucial for achieving a breakthrough in the Armenia-Türkiye normalization process and breaking the current vicious circle, before the U.S. administration’s attention shifts to the midterm elections. Türkiye, in coordination with the United States, should consider convening a high-level Armenia-Türkiye summit in September-October 2026 and invite Prime Minister Pashinyan to Ankara. The primary goal of the summit should be to reach agreement on establishing diplomatic relations, opening the border, and launching the Gyumri-Kars railway.

Without action, the region risks slipping into a prolonged “no war, no peace” limbo that would weaken the prospects for lasting stability and open the door to future military escalation.

source: Dr Benyamin Poghosyan is Senior Research Fellow at APRI Armenia and a member of the LINKS Europe Strategic Platform on Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. This article was first published in the Turkish publication "Global Panorama".

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)